The Old UMC is Dying. The New UMC cannot yet be born.

Enter the Interregnum

Whenever a Pope dies, the Roman Catholic Church has a period of time before they name a new successor. It’s called the interregnum, meaning a “gap” in the leadership of the church. This “gap time” also takes place between monarchs, elected regimes, and parish priests assuming their authority.

The term can be applied to institutions and social structures when they are in a period of transition. A recent article called the current political situation in the United States an interregnum:

The Italian philosopher, Gramsci defined the concept well: “The old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum many morbid symptoms arise.” [There is a] sense of being trapped between a dying establishment and a new order that is not quite formed…We know the change is going to come. It’s just a matter of how bitter the resistance is going to be.”

Things can be incredibly volatile in this interim time, and we see that reflected in The United Methodist Church right now: our best qualities become used as weapons against one another.

At all levels of the UMC…

At all the concentric circles in The United Methodist Church, we see the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born.

At the local church level, the old UMC of tithing and clear clergy ladders is dying. The biggest givers of local time and resources are passing away or passing the torch, leaving the responsibility for huge buildings and leadership on fewer and less financially affluent people. And pastors who have “given their time” don’t understand why the system is giving bigger churches to younger pastors. As the institution and the movement are contrasted, there’s a lot of volatility at the local church level.

At the annual conference level, the old UMC of the annual conference functioning as the central body of the Church is dying. The number of middle managers (District Superintendents) is decreasing, the budgets for missions and ministries are being replaced by grants (with strings attached and no promises of multi-year support), and decades of creeping congregationalism have taken their toll on Annual Conferences. We don’t know what will come next.

At the global level, the old UMC that was primarily an American church, that was dominated by the Southern states, and that had a homogenous polity, is dead. No amount of effort to revive the dead will change that the demographics: USA will be a minority voice by 2024 (possibly 2028, but no later). Our global polity that gave uneven power and responsibility across the globe is showing the cracks in the seams, and even regions in the United States are living out their differences more boldly.

These old ways of doing things are dying, but in the interim, the new way of doing things cannot yet be born to help an institution “turn the corner” into a new way of being.

…The morbid systems arise

The truth is that we know that life in The United Methodist Church is going to look different. We know. The only question is how powerful the reactions will be.

In at least two areas, the powers-that-be are invested heavily in “morbid systems” that seek to prop-up the dying church instead of embracing the new.

1. Authority beyond Legitimacy

Authority is important in The United Methodist Church. Our three sources of authority (Experience, Tradition, and Reason) that reflect on our ultimate authority (Scripture) distinguish us from other churches who venerate one over the other and provide a balanced, reasonable approach. We live out these authorities, at our best, in The UMC’s concentric circles of authority that keep peers accountable to one another.

However, in the interregnum, authority steps in front of its legitimacy and becomes authoritarianism to stop the progress into the new way of being.

When society is afraid, they look to appeal to authorities to defeat the things that are making them afraid. For example, the rise of Donald Trump in American politics. Supporters fear that the government has turned against them and support someone who seems to want to burn it down as much as they do.

Folks may respond that “yes, we are afraid…for apostasy” and that’s probably true. But it is also true that authoritarian actions are keeping the new UMC from rising–many of which have been documented on this blog over the past 8 years.

2. Uniformity is Dead. Long Live Unity.

The other problem with the interregnum is that the morbid system of uniformity is being propped up: the sentiment that the doctrine and polity of The United Methodist Church needs to be the same everywhere. While we’ve had diversity in our polity since the 1968 merger allowed regions outside the USA to make limited changes to their regions’ polity, it has rarely been acknowledged.

The Old UMC of uniformity and rigidity is dying, and the new one of unity and diversity is waiting to be legitimized and become fully present. But the bitter resistance continues. The drumbeat of schism as a reaction to every violation leads bloggers say The UMC will be “shattered” by unity without uniformity, failing to acknowledge we’ve always been this way. The old UMC is dying, but the morbid systems that feed off the dead are quite loud.

Long Live the UMC

In the interregnum, a strange phrase is often uttered by folks anticipating a new monarch: “The Queen is Dead. Long Live the Queen.” It’s a message that names the reality of death, but also anticipates the chair will continue to be filled.

We know The United Methodist Church will endure, even unto death. We’ve overcome debates over clergywomen and the full inclusion of ethnic minorities. We’ve split in pieces, in half, and come back together. And each time, Methodists stood between a dying institution’s present and its successor institution’s resurrection or reincarnation. And we are again.

Let us enter fully into the interregnum and come out the other side in a church of more just relationships than before, full of the authority of Christ, and the unity that is more powerful than uniformity.

Comments

I’ve heard one measure of remedy is to provide a central conference for the US, but this will not solve any matter that is in a more authoritative area of the BoD (for example, our denominational prohibition on LGBT persons). As you point out, there are practices African UMs do that are permissible under central conference guidance, but if some of these were ever brought to the judicial council (eg. denying communion to children of polygamists) they would likely get struck down. Central conferences do not give the autonomy they are widely believed to have. Perhaps the Global Book of Discipline will help this.

While some annual conferences are pledging to allow LGBT persons to serve as clergy, charges could be brought against any one of them by any member of the UMC– even someone they’ve never met on the other side of the world– and their bishop would be hard-pressed to not conduct a church trial given the current rules, even when it’s likely their bishop disagrees with the homophobic statements in the BoD. It’s an abusive state of harassment and constant threat of life and livelihood. It’s no wonder the Progressive wing of the church continues to be forced out.

But, you’re absolutely correct: unity by force, coercion, is not unity at all. As true in the UMC as in other denominations facing “sanctions” (“consequences”) for welcoming LGBT persons. As for charges of apostasy, it is a very literal reading of scripture and ignoring of early church history that gives rise to opposite-sex marriage as a core doctrine of the church. I think most UMs, including conservatives, wouldn’t go that far. I’ve never found marriage equality to be the litmus test most Conservative-Evangelicals believe it to be, and this is increasingly recognized by new generations of Conservative-Evangelicals, in time for GC2016? Probably not.

Two years ago, African UMs in my UM polity class shared with me their BoDs in French (it was one from 1992, which has its own problems — they’re still doing the ordination two-step (deacon-elder) in some parts of Africa due to lack of available translations of more recent BoDs). Our general board staff can confirm this fact. Anyway, there, in French, was a prohibition on children of polygamists receiving communion, I couldn’t believe what I saw. Our professor quickly countered that was not appropriate (1) to use the 1992 BoD and (2) that was an abuse of what central conference autonomy represents.
Regrettably, I do not have contact with either of these students any more, nor could I find any reference online ( except this: http://ibrarian.net/navon/paper/AN_AFRICAN_PERSPECTIVE_ON_POLYGAMY_IN_THE_UNITED_.pdf?paperid=17744381 )
To be clear, I do not believe there was any malice here, simply the fault of the denomination for not providing the most recent BoD in local languages and not explaining central conference autonomy can’t be used in this manner, again, perhaps the Global Book of Discipline will clarify what can and cannot be followed by central conferences. Nevertheless, it proves it’s not just Progressives that seek local adaptation of the BoD.

My original point remains: The resolution coming to GC that aims to develop a central conference for the US will not impact our current struggle over LGBT/Q inclusion one way or the other, the homophobic language is in a part of the Discipline that cannot be ignored by central conferences– if a charge is brought against an LGBT/Q person, the bishop must hold the trial, here, there and everywhere… unfortunately.

We provide unity with force on many issues…. if a pastor moves outside of certain areas, he/she will be disciplined and ultimately removed from ministry … we are just picking the areas we are “exclusive in” and which ones we disagree with and are “inclusive” … the church structure is very exclusive .. I can not do baptisms and communion (and marriages) as a lay person (CLM) and I find very little scriptural authority for this stand, but if I were to openly violate this restriction, I would run into a “force” that would exclude me very quickly… we have agreed to agree on these restrictions (the discipline under the direction of our general conference) and live in covenant whether we agree or not (I do this voluntarily in order to minster within the church effectively) … I can chose not to, but that choice would also exclude me from ministry .. that’s the way it is

I’m not convinced that this is an interregnum period. The UMC is moving from a religious institution, which is dying, to scattered remnants that are more like movements. I see that authority has transferred from leadership based in integrity and connection to leadership based in authoritarianism and delusions. The Council of Bishops seems to be joined together on a path to get people to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. When we consider all the interpretations that there can be of what this means, then activate authoritarianism of church leadership, then consider that the mission is focused on survival of the church, and then remove leadership devoted to meeting people where they are, we arrive at the present time in church leadership. As time goes by it becomes clear that attempting to unite around a common mission is confusing when it happens by force, not by will. Why would young adults who don’t care for institutions or denominationalism or authoritarianism care about Christian faith? Except in a few places, it has become far removed from anything relevant to their values and lives.

We’ve breathed out, but have not yet breathed in.
I think the Church we’re about to be – when we finally breathe in – is anticipated in Robin Meyers’ book “Spiritual Defiance,” which I think is a must read. The prologue opens with, “The Church is dead. Long live the Church.”

Interesting perspective. To me, it coincides with a recent Peggy Noonan article (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected-1456448550) talking about the rise of what she calls the Unprotected…persons who have lost faith in their leadership, political and otherwise. It is a characteristic which finds parallels in virtually every faith group, where those seeking to preserve or restore an old order have become disconnected with the people they seek to serve. Perhaps Pope Francis has it right when he observes “who am I to judge” and in a recent book relates that “the name of God is Mercy.” Right now, mercy seems to play only a peripheral role in the discussions over the way forward. I would pray that it moves to the center of the discussion.

I think one could just as legitimately make the claim that “in the interregnum, authority steps in front of its legitimacy and becomes authoritarianism to hasten the progress into a new way of being.”

Certainly that seems to be the central idea underlying arguments for dissolution or splits of the church and calls for greater accountability among episcopal and general agency leadership–the perception that (certain of) these individuals are acting as authoritarians, without legitimacy, to accommodate and progress toward a new way of being despite an inability to get legislative authority for that particular new way over the past 44 years. It is precisely what you describe as those regions that have lived into your preferred conception of the New UMC.

Just an observation.

Your larger point remains–regardless one’s personal views about what the New UMC will or should be–that the old is dying and that God will raise up something new in its place.

I could not disagree more. The church is not dying a natural death, it is being murdered by those who have rejected the Covenant and chosen to act out in absolute rebellion. To then claim to be “victims” of those who call for faithfulness, is beyond the pale.

I do believe that the only way out of this quagmire will ultimately be a split, as unsavory as that is. Neither side is ever budging on the core issues here, (Authority of Scripture and faithfulness to vows), so we live as two cats tied together at the tail. United, but not happy about it. Frankly, when that split comes many of us will be relieved.

The historical joy I take is that we’ve entered the interregnum before. We ordained women in recognition of the Spirit’s touch on them. We integrated churches not because society wanted them but because we did. And now we see the Spirit’s touch on LGBT persons, but willfully deny them recognition in the church in both order and marriage.

In contrast, the quagmire is passable just as we did it before and will do again. The tenacity of the people called Methodists is not reflected on either end of the extremes that you and I sit on. I’m sure of it.

Jeremy,
Accepting women and blacks, as laudable as that was, is not related to accepting what God has deemed sin. God will not bless an enterprise that disregards His Word. Witness that in the fact that every denomination that has gone down this road is swiftly dying. Every Annual conference in Methodism that has chosen to call “good” what God has declared as evil, is losing members at a fast pace. There is not a righteous way to embrace unrighteousness.

The UMC in America has lost members since the 1968 elimination of the Central Jurisdiction, which was barely a decade after women became clergy. By your logic, God is punishing the UMC for being inclusive of women and other ethnicities. Try again.

There is a death tsunami coming and if we alienate those older “givers” that paid for the churches we are complaining about then the new generations wont learn the joy of giving, commitment and sacrefice. We need a “passing of the baton” if you will. Some seem to want to rewrite the bible so we don’t offend anyone, or point out sin. I’m not sure our God that will still judge us all someday feels about that. I guess we will find out. “Jesus loves you” doth not a doctrine make.

If we accept all, which we should or course, then we still need to get money to support all of the “programs”. Someone has to understand that not just the old and dying are the givers. We can’t have everything for free, because we will eventually run out of money. do we pay for the electricity and wiFi and pizza, with just car washes? NO. You want to use politics as an example? Then we pick which one “lies the least”. That takes a lot of prayer.
We still need to simply be and make disciples.

I found this article hit the market in so many ways. As a Lay person taking the “Heritage” class on Methodist history, I find the past schisms strangely re-assyring (We survived it before…). As a member of a small rural (read dying) church I see the changing demographics as well as those who hold on to the old ways. The energy put forth to argue a viewpoint and to hold on to dying ways, seems to me to put effort into the wrong arenas. My personal wish is to put energy into putting faith to work on the crying needs of the world. Thanks you for putting into words what I was seeing and sensing was happening.

Jeremy’s article illustrates what organizational theory calls a ‘wicked problem,’ where an institution cannot agree on either the precise nature of the problem nor a solution; communication is skewed; trust is shaky; there is no stopping rule, i.e., it resists final settlement but mutates into a fresh set of issues. Jeremy highlights selected legitimate aspects of the church challenge while omitting alternative perspectives, another aspect of a wicked problem. Traditional approaches to deal with a WP can be authority (hard in a volunteer institution), competition (last interest group standing wins but tends to create lose-lose scenarios) and collaboration (tendency is to ‘fail’ into collaboration if all else seems lost, but typically collaboration later reverts to competition). The ways forward? Look for sources of life where the Spirit is moving in the church (appreciative inquiry), discern the role of ‘satisficing,’ i.e., what is a ‘good enough’ response to aspects of the problem, identify clearly what is and isn’t non-negotiable, recall that ‘the questions you ask determine the answers you get’ in framing questions for discussion or debate, remember that healthy dialogue is incompatible with decision-making so separate out those processes to protect the integrity of both…and this is for starters. GOOGLE the term and reflect, remembering that if we enter General Conference with a clear conceptional frame of reference for the reality and dynamics of what is happening (facing a wicked problem) we are infinitely better prepared to create the atmosphere where constructive outcomes rather than collisions occur.

As someone who came from a long line of Methodist ministers who is now a Presbyterian (PCUSA). I think that the issues presented here could be found in any denomination. We must remember that we worship a living God who is exposed to us in many new and challenging ways. Our structures must change, we must be willing to move. I am a part of a discernment process within my denomination about if we should seek union with the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Yet we chose to not include the UMC and The Episcopal Church because we felt that the UMC and TEC were not willing to change structures that must change. As one of my pastor-mentors said “We have a fundamentalism of polity, not one of theology”. We must seek to allow freedom and congregationalism so that people from all perspectives may live their faith in productive and positive ways.

you mean “our theology and polity is anti-bishop, and we didn’t want to include any denominations with strong episcopacy.” That’s not cool and certainly not ecumenically generous. This ignores the strong similarities between the PC(USA) and UMC — in liturgy/worship, current theology, and in areas of polity… we have far, far more in common than what separates us. Such thinking also ignores the issues with congregational polities, and presbyterian polities.

We do have a great deal in common as mainline churches. I cannot understand why folks don’t understand that episcopacy is a safeguard from over-congregational systems (this is to say that we belong to the church, not churchES). I am strongly ecumenical, but cannot fathom why we would jettison a practice of government just for the sake of supposed unity…we can *alter* the system, but abandoning episcopacy for the sake of unity seems to run contrary to logic…bishops are visible symbols of unity.

“At the global level, the old UMC that was primarily an American church, that was dominated by the Southern states, and that had a homogenous polity, is dead. No amount of effort to revive the dead will change that the demographics: USA will be a minority voice by 2024 (possibly 2028, but no later). Our global polity that gave uneven power and responsibility across the globe is showing the cracks in the seams, and even regions in the United States are living out their differences more boldly.”

As a third generation United Methodist in the Philippines (my grandfather was baptized through the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 1940s), we see the UMC as a global church. I find it quite insulting for Americans, and especially progressive American Methodists, to belittle the global movement. We’re not some benighted savages living in the theological backwaters of the third world. You look into American demographics and declare the old UMC dead, but where is the celebration that our global church is growing? The old church is still there, it just doesn’t have a Caucasian face anymore. If the MCE/UMC never wanted our voices heard or our votes count, then why missionize outsize the US in the first place?

The UMC in the USA may be dying, but the global UMC is not. And if we are more evangelical and more conservative, it is only because we have not suffered secularization to the extent that the Western people have.

Hi Dan, thanks for commenting. I feel like I need to ask whether you are saying I am belittling the global movement, calling people savages, in the backwaters. I don’t believe I am. Since you are a reader with a lens of the global church that I don’t have, please let me know where on this article or blog I belittle people outside the USA.

If your reference is this quote, I’m saying *precisely* what you are saying: the image of the UMC as a Caucasian-faced American Church has been replaced (soon a majority) by a global ethnic one. That’s a celebration. All the changes are celebrations in my mind, so it wasn’t meant to be negative or, to use your word, belittling.

Finally, since America has suffered secularization at a higher rate than Africa, doesn’t it then make sense for Americans to make some decisions for themselves, on the level that Central Conferences have had the privilege since 1968?

Quick thought.
No, it doesn’t make sense for Americans to make some decisions for themselves since we are a GLOBAL church. Once again, the secular/progressive/ influence is not a cause for celebration but sadness. It is the clearest sign of decay, which would be obvious to anyone looking. The progressive UMC is dying, the evangelical is not. There is a point there somewhere…

No, this ignores the fact that homophobia currently in Africa was a Western colonial export to Africa. Western imperial efforts nearly erased the native African history of LGBT/Q persons, so much that now many African religious leaders (though not all– Abp. Tutu a notable exception) now believe homosexuality to be a Western export to Africa and sign of decay.
The progressive wing of the UMC is dying, because we’re expected to do ministry with our hands-tied, as our BoD becomes increasingly conservative since the 1980s, your argument is cyclical. Untie our hands, remove the homophobic language and watch us flourish.

It looks like Dan might have misunderstood Jeremy, as he wasn’t belittling the global movement. The current global structure isn’t fair, as it treats the Jurisdictions of the United States differently. We should indeed have our own “Central Conference” and be allowed the same reasonable flexibility that has historically been given to those outside of the US.

I think the reading of just how and what the Central Conferences are able to change or adapt to their setting. There are some procedural things that they change, but they don’t change basic relationships, doctrines, or beliefs.
Also, I think Dan is sensitive because while I have NEVER seen Jeremy be dismissive of our global growth in the UMC, many progressives are. I have seen all kinds of rationales or arguments about how our overseas delegates are essentially pawns of some part of the US church. It is quite condescending. As I said, Jeremy has never to my knowledge ever engaged in such, but many others have.
As an American who has done work in Africa, and who plans on much more future ministry in Africa, I have to say I very much appreciate what our global nature means. Unfortunately, I believe that much of the American part of our UMC has been derailed by a modernist existential philosophical worldview, rather than a Gospel worldview. While I believe matter of human sexuality are often the presenting issue in the UMC, it is not our real issue. Our real issues deal with the relationships between Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason. The progressive wing of the UMC believes that our Experience and Reason is to inform our readings and understandings of Scripture and Tradition. The traditionalists among us believe that Scripture and Tradition should inform our Experience and Reason. Now, I know there is much in those two statements. I could go on and on, and research and write blog posts, and probably a dissertation about those things, but I lift them up here as is, for a thumbnail of what I believe our issues to be.
The question is will GC be able to address these deep theological issues of worldview which are so different.

“Authority is important in The United Methodist Church. Our three sources of authority (Experience, Tradition, and Reason) that reflect on our ultimate authority (Scripture)…”

If our “Ultimate Authority” is scripture, how do we reconcile the long held tradition of defining marriage as the life long commitment between a man and a woman with the practice of same sex marriage?

I have had discussions with my gay friends and acquaintances over the last 50 plus years about this. During this time they have described their relationship to others as a partnership and introduced each other as their partner.

I have encouraged them to use “Life Partner (ship)” as a far more accurate description of their relationship.

Partners, friends, indicate an equality in the relationship that traditional marriage does not.
Marriage in almost every society has expected roles, responsibilities and expectations built into the marriage relationship. Not so in partnerships or fiendships.

Every human language, every human civilization, that I have studied, defines the long term relationship between a man and a woman as a ”marriage”.

This relationship seems to originate as part of a religious/community recognition that this relationship is the best way to encourage nurturing and rearing of children as well as helping to provide some stability of sexual relationships in a society.

This “Schism” in our denomination will continue as long as we do not have a common definition of “marriage”.

I’m straight and I introduce the woman I’m married to as “my partner.” It doesn’t lessen our covenant to each other, or our expectations, but it is hospitable to show that the particulars of our status doesn’t matter, and neither should LGBT couples who do not share my privilege.

The main reason, in my eyes, that the UMC is a unique church is our inter-connectedness. We are One church and I as a pastor am authorized to preach One faith, the Church’s. This is huge and failure to see this is very problematic.

The number one problem with the any church today is authority. Everything falls apart if everybody gets to be a theological expert. Everything disintegrates if the clergy is no longer seen and respected as the experts on spiritual matters. It quickly becomes blind leading the blind.

Honestly, I don’t really care that much if the UMC lives or dies. I don’t think the UMC is -the- Church that Christ was talking about that would never die. I am pretty sure the UMC will eventually wither and die. Something else will be raised up by God and life will go on.
However, I do care about truth. I do care about being involved in a church that claims that what it teaches and preaches isn’t opinions or ideas but God’s eternal truth, especially as it pertains to sin and salvation. So far, the UMC has been a church that has said that “- We know, as a church, what God wants and doesn’t want, what God approves of and doesn’t approve of, in short, what kind of people we are supposed to be”. If that changes to whatever someone’s opinion is…then I’m out.

LGBT or whatever, there will always be issues that divide us. The question is, do we intend to stand on the historical faith that we received and live it out as best we can…or do we fly a white flag whenever the Devil or the World demand that we change our views?

When theology and doctrine are decided by majority rule, and is declared the “faith of the Church,” while some of the best Biblical scholars and theologians legitimately call those views into question (or can even demonstrate them to be erroneous), that’s where many of us have an issue, Andreas. A far more productive and sustaining approach is to agree on central tenets and core beliefs and carry out the mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, while allowing for individual differences in belief and practice of those things that aren’t part of the core. Right, Jeremy?

I’m 63, nearing retirement, one of those ‘older pastors.’ I DO get that our younger clergy should necessarily rise into the larger pulpits. In my Missouri Conference half of us will retire in the the next five years, and I expect half of our congregations will also retire. IF they do not, the majority (yes, more than half) will be served by less-than-full-time pastors, mostly lay. This is another sea change which reveals nuanced doctrine is really not as important to us as genuine relationship. I have never been part of the ‘old regime.’ I came back into Methodism with a non-denominational liberal seminary degree (Union/NYC) and after membership in the Order:Ecumenical, a family order of The Ecumenical Institute Faith and Life Movement. We embraced (and I still do) H. Richard Niebuhr’s affirmation: “Wherever people are sensitive to injustice and suffering and respond, that is the Church.” Like Andreas I have never been particularly attached to Methodism, while affirming and serving it. I had kids and needed a pension. So Institution matters. But I’ve not fit in well in traditional-leaning-evangelical Missouri Methodism partly because of my more dynamic and universalist understanding of the Church. I agree with Janet that we are burdened by a “fundamentalism of polity.’ I’ve always seen moving pastors up a salary ladder as affirmation of capitalism more than authentically serving the needs of churches by giving them the clergy leadership they need. I’ve been told most Methodist connections in the world have shared salary systems. If so, that’s a good argument FOR Methodist polity, at it’s best. As for Methodism ‘dying,’ every church dies. The original church in Jerusalem died. The churches at Ephesus and Corinth died. Of course Methodism needs to ‘die,’ and I trust God will raise up whatever forms of the Church are needed wherever and whenever. Remember, our primary paradoxical dogma is “To die is to live.” We assume that comes straight from Jesus, and our common narrative puts that at the core. I’m with Phyllis Tickle. We live in exciting times. “The old is passing away, and behold, the new is come.” What else is ‘new?’ I’m increasingly satisfied in passing it off to a new generation of leaders who I trust will listen to The Holy Spirit and make good decisions.

The Methodist Church has survived many schisms, but after each one, the church has been diminished. Consider the split over slavery in 1848 followed by reunion in 1939 with the nefarious “Central Conference.” What about the Holiness Movement of the late early 20th century? Where did all those Nazarenes and Pentecostals come from? Yes we have split up many times, and the results have almost always been that the sum of the parts failed to equal the original whole. Even the 1968 merger that left the high water mark of Methodism in terms of membership did not last. The UMC has lost members every year since. One thing that has continued to grow, however, is the bureaucracy, enshrined in the Book of Discipline. Even though the great man himself inspired this book, I expect Mr. Wesley would be the first to say it is in desperate need of a major overhaul.

The UMC died when clergy and clergy leaders placed their personal opinion above the authority of Scripture, broke their vows, broke covenant, and the rest of the leaders cowered under a false banner of “unity at any cost”. Now anything goes. The Discipline is shattered and it is either time to re-set Discipline honestly, or continue to pretend and watch what was the UMC go the way of chaos, death and insignificance following the destructive path of Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopal Church of America, United Church of Christ. ,

Yeah, thanks to the Conservative IRD’s plans to destroy Mainline denominations. What would be THE authority of Scripture? Do we close our open table? Stop ordaining women? Do you mean, YOUR interpretation of Scripture? Again, unity under threat is not unity– conformity, uniformity, but not unity in Christ.

There is strong Scriptural backing to Women as Pastors, Preachers, Teachers. Jesus sent women to announce the Resurrection and the woman at the well to profess the Messiah; then there is Deborah, Cloe, Pricilla….. Jesus very witness on the open table of the Lord’s Supper sets the precedent. But the same Jesus defined marriage as between a man and a woman and referenced Genesis. There simply is no Scriptural based justification for LGBT marriage/ordination. Mainline denominations are being destroyed by buckling under to Universalist Unitarian corrupt culture intimidation that is bullying compliance to destroy all who will not buckle. Unity at any cost is not unity, but bullying. Let’s just realize universalism will never be compatible with Christian Orthodoxy and make a clean break.

no, Jesus defined divorce, not marriage (one of the reasons marriage is not a sacrament in the UMC and other Protestant churches). Aferall, if Jesus cared so much about marriage, he would have led by example (and I don’t mean the Pauline church as the bride of Christ).
I find it offensive that you would consider LGBT-inclusion against core doctrine of Christian teaching and immediately call the growing number of Christians who support LGBT-inclusion simply UUAs, which is untrue and a dualistic view. Love our UUA friends, but this is untrue. Whose Christian orthodoxy? Yours? We’re all unorthodox to the Eastern Orthodox, afterall!

Jeremy
Thanks for opening the issue for discussion. I came into the conf. in 1975 and have lived with the loss of over a third of our vitality.
I am glad to see people recognizing the shifting earth beneath our feet. Too many of our churches are no longer relevant to the people we seek to serve.
As to the issue of inclusiveness, those who insist that scripture identifies being LGBTQ as sin are reading as much into it as they are getting out of it. The text does not support that conclusion. If we read Matthew chapter 8 and Luke chapter 7 we clearly see Jesus accepting a same sex relationship as holy and good, even commending the centurion’s faith.
The issue behind the issue is our interpretation of scripture. Like the fear behind prejudice, we cannot come to any resolution until we address the primal concern that fires our knee-jerk reactions.

If the “wicked problem” is our irreconcilable interpretation of Scripture vis a vis the issue of homosexuality, can the “wicked solution” be a denominational divorce? Can a denominational task force representing both sides be formed to work out the process of amicable separation and the formation and organization of two separate but equal denominations? (Without prejudice, one denomInation may be called Progressive United Methodist Church, the other, Traditional United Methodist Church). I do think this is the “wicked way” forward.

Anyone that thinks the biggest issue facing the UMC is LGBT issues is deceiving themselves. The church hasn’t grown since the late 60’s in America. That was long before we started this current debate. Quit lying to yourselves. Has the Epispocial Church grown since they became more accepting?

It is worthy of reflection that Holy Scripture assures us that our next breath will be enjoyed only at the discretion of God. Many other languages have the “God willing” built into their language. We who use English need to remind ourselves of our fleeting existence, ignorance, and impotence in the absence of God’s will. We may then avoid the pridefulness that precedes a fall.

Will you join me as I pray? I pray that the United Methodist Church (UMC) will fulfill God’s purpose for it and thereby glorify God. I pray that the Christians within the UMC will be reconciled to God, not the world, and thereby enjoy the peace with God. I pray that the word of God will be preached from the pulpit. I pray that God will shine light on the apostates so that their dead works will be clearly seen by the faithful. I pray that the UMC membership will abide in Christ’s word and the Holy Spirit will bring discernment to us such that the bearers of heresies will retreat as we resist the Devil. I pray that souls will be saved by hearing the word of God.
Lord, may it be so according to your will. Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Thank you Lord! Praise God!

You state the UMC is dying. While trends and data do show decline, there is a huge difference between dying and declining. There are many areas of the church that are showing growth, including entire Annual Conferences. Perhaps you’re stretching metaphors of dying to appeal to your argument that a new UMC is being born. I simply disagree that the UMC is dying. When our church is growing by leaps and bounds in a global context, it is obvious to me that our church has a spirit of revival. To simply point at data and say that the church is dying is to both underestimate the church and to ignore the greater context. Remember that we are a global church and that growth of our church in another continent is relevant, real growth, even if you do not agree with their theology.

Jeremy, You seem to be unaware that the Western Jurisdiction is a Reconciling Jurisdiction. The Desert Southwest Conference UMC is also a Reconciling Conference, with many churches offering an open alar for same gender weddings. But we are few in relation to the SE Jurisdiction and Central Conference. The article is well done and describes the real situation of most of our churches.

In our middle TN area UMC churches are slowly but surely losing membership. I know of about five locally that don’t have over 15 people attending every Sunday & most of them are of the old school 65 years and older. As they die out these churches will have to close. It is not only the UMC but also the Presbyterians, Episcopals, United Church of Christ & others that are losing membership at an alarming rate. The movement is toward non-denominational and community churches and surprisingly the Church of God and Assemblies of God are enjoying increasing memberships. The Southern Baptists and Church of Christ are losing members but at a much slower rate than the others mentioned above. The old mainstream churches are not connected with the millennials and young people over all. THAT is the problem. But that doesn’t mean than the UMC should go against scripture for that will surely be the end of the UMC. God is in control and purposely going against what the scriptures say is a no win solution. The Word is not being preached from the pulpits of the UMC as it should be. The taboo subjects are avoided in sermons and ignored by pastors. They don’t want to “rock the boat”. But in doing so it gives the impression that “anything goes”. Good pastors are sparse in the UMC. People are not going to attend if they are not being fed spiritually. Scripturally it is very clear that God considers homosexuality as a perversion & so therefore the UMC should take a stand. If the Bible be our foundation there is no other way, otherwise the UMC will continue to lose membership.

Trackbacks

[…] If Rule 44 does not pass, then we see that General Conference will be the same as previous years. There will be posturing instead of conversation. There will be grandstanding and protests instead of peaceful listening. The dead system will not allow the new one to live. […]

[…] factions. In a vacuum of credible leadership, the most incredible/uncredible of plans will rise. In the interregnum, morbid systems arise. This is the last shot to deny other agendas a foothold, even the […]